> In discussing omissions in the topic of women, you list as> examples,motherhood, prostitution, and what was the third one? What,> you're not interested in women's political, economic, academic, religious> roles, only in the tired old stereotypes ofmother, prostitute, and etc.> But thanks for the reference, I'll read the book anyway. Ruby Rohrlich

I must have given you the wrong idea about the book. It's not
a general study of Roman society, but a study of the different
*positions* or roles occupied by individuals. The chapters have
titles like "The Jurist", "The Slave", etc. So I didn't expect
a chapter on "Womens' Role in Economic life". And though I did
think many of the chapters could have paid more attention to women,
I think the biggest absence was chapters on female roles, to balance
the chapters on exclusively male roles (such as soldiers and jurists).
Hence the three possibilities I listed.